TAXATION 


ABSOLUTELY  JUST  AND  EQUITABLE  TAXATION 
ON  THE  PLAN  OF  UTILITY  OR 
REASONABLE  ANNUAL  AVERAGE  RENTAL  VALUE. 


BY 

NAPOLEON  WAGNER. 


$21,900.  Their  cousins  No.  2 
No.  31  bear  the  same  relation,  yet 
there  is  only  9,000  lbs.  between 
their  weight.  Is  it  the  diet 
makes  the  difference?  Do  Nos.  30 
and  31  live  on  a diet  call- 
ed special  privilege?  It  is 
said  when  one  gets  used 
to  it — you  don’t  like  to 
give  it  up.  See  diagram  blocks,  page 
more  relatives  of  the  same  family;  they  live  all 
over  every  city;  they  have  oil  tongues  and 
honeyed  words  but  are  undesiralyle  citizens. 

You  want  to  shun  them  as  you  would  a horse 
thief.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  largest  family  on 
earth,  yet  there  is  no  consanguinity 

Popular  Price  15  cents,  at  Kendrick-Bellamy  Book  and  Art  Store, 
Corner  Sixteenth  and  Stout  Sts.,  Denver,  Colorado. 


Two  brothers  (lots  No.  3 and 
No.  30 ) . They  live  just  across  the 
alley  in  the  same  block  No.  161, 
East  Denver.  They  are  nearly 
twins — both  the  same  age  and 
size — each  resides  third  door 
from  the  corner — yet  they  can- 
not be  weighed  on  the  same 
scale,  because  No.  3 weighs 
12,500  lbs.  more  than  his  brother 
and  has  an  extra  and  unneces- 
sary value  burden  to  carry  of 


Clark  Quick-Printing  Co.,  Lawrence  1332-1334. 


FOREWORD. 


We  fully  realize  the  degree  of  success  enjoyed  at  the  start  will 
greatly  influence  its  rapid  future  usefulness.  We  all  must  know  this 
plan  is  founded  on  a truthful  and  honest  basis;  hence  we  sincerely 
appeal  loudly  to  all  educators,  those  in  official  position  and  all  others 
who  can  without  prejudice  lend  a helping  hand  in  giving  it  the  widest 
publicity  possible,  to  the  end  that  we  may  eliminate  the  bad  and  save 
the  good. 

Pro  Bono  Publico. 


Second  Edition. 


SPECIAL  NOTICE 

'Phis  plan  of  taxation  is  copyrighted  and  published  not  for  pe- 
cuniary gain,  but  to  give  it  a name  or  identity,  and  to  accomplish  the 
purpose  for  which  it  is  intended,  viz. : The  betterment  and  uplift 
of  the  entire  human  family  to  which  it  is  truthfully  and  lovingly  dedi- 
cated. Copy  will  be  furnished  free  to  any  city  adopting  it  and  com- 
plying with  the  author’s  request.  We  would  like  very  much  to  give 
it  to  all  the  people  gratis,  but  if  it  should  prove  very  popular — have 
a great  demand — it  might  lead  us  into  deep  water  financially. 
Hence  we  decided,  because  of  its  great  usefulness,  to  make  it  popular 
— if  possible  put  it  into  every  home — by  making  the  price  15  cents^ 
which  is  about  the  cost  of  the  material,  printing,  circulating,  etc. 
It  can  be  had  at  The  Kendrick-Bellamy  Book  & Art  Co.,  corner  Six- 
teenth & Stout  Streets,  Denver,  Colorado,  or  address  No.  1101  Emer^ 
son  Street,  Denver,  Colorado. 


33  "S-S. 

\AJ 


COPYRIGHT,  1911 

BY 

NAPOLEON  WAGNER,  M.  D,  LL.  B. 

ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED. 


n 

i 


SAYS  ONLY  SANE  TAXATION  IS  TREATING  OF  ALL  ALIKE. 


MUST  BE  GENERAL,  UNIFORM  AND  DIVIDED  EQUABLY  ACCORDING  TO  VALUES. 

(To  the  Republican.) — A sane  method  of  taxation  is  to  treat  all 
alike;  any  divergence  from  this  method,  no  matter  how  slight,  is  bor- 
dering on  the  insane.  In  order  to  accomplish  this  it  will  be  necessary 
to  adopt  a few  general  rules  and  definitions : 


1.  We  will  first  define  a corner:  A corner  is  any  amount  of 
land  which  absorbs  and  appropriates  all  special  benefits  of  a principal 
street  in  addition  to  the  usual  benefits  derived  from  a cross  street  and 
alley,  viz. : Front,  side  and  rear  entrance ; it  takes  to  itself  all  the 
frontage  of  abutting  principal  street.  For  example : It  may  consist 
of  a very  narrow  strip,  even  of  only  a few  feet  or  inches  in  width, 
just  sufficient  to  build  a spite  wall,  or  it  may  extend  to  the  middle  of 
a block.  To  illustrate:  If  steel  spite  walls  were  built  on  the  two 
corners  of  any  half  block,  say  of  two  feet  in  width  and  12  or  less 
stories  in  height,  all  the  rest  of  the  ground  between  these  two  walls  are 
I inside,  or  middle,  lots,  and  should  be  treated  practically  alike,  except 
I for  a slight  additional  valuation  for  those  nearest  to  the  corners, 
j ^ 2.  We  will  next  define  inside  lots  as  all  ground  not  included  in 

I the  corner,  completely  shut  out  from  the  principal  street.  It  may 
I include  every  inch  of  land  between  the  two  spite  walls  which  derive 
I only  the  usual  benefit  from  a cross  street  and  alley,  viz.:  front  and 
j rear  entrance. 

3.  Utility  must  govern  all  value,  whether  inside  or  corner  lots. 
There  is  no  safer  or  saner  rule  applicable  than  the  reasonable  average 
annual  rental  value,  or,  if  vacant  property,  the  probable  utility,  estab- 

;?  lished  by  the  general  custom  of  the  immediate  neighborhood,  of  the 
■ reasonable  average  annual  rental  value. 

4.  All  lots  possess  a speculative  value  over  and  above  the  rea- 
: sonable  average  annual  rental  value.  This  applies  alike  to  all  corner 

and  inside  lots  and  is  not  subject  to  taxation  because  this  so-called 
I speculative  value  is  unascertainable.  Valuation  is  the  act  of  ascer- 
I tabling  the  worth  of  a thing,  or  the  estimated  worth  of  a thing.  It 
I differs  from  price,  which  does  not  always  afford  a true  criterion  of 
value,  for  a thing  may  be  bought  very  dear  or  very  cheap. 

5.  The  so-called  key  to  a corner  is  speculative  value — a night- 
! mare,  a dream,  a delusion— is  chance;  it  may  never  materialize  nor 
, unlock  anything,  and  is  not  subject  to  taxation. 


f35799 


4 


6.  Consolidation:  Each  foot  of  ground  added  to  a corner  or 
spite  wall  in  a good  business  district  adds  many  fold  to  its  former 
utility,  its  rental  and  real  value.  The  highest  type  of  consolidation 
and  the  greatest  value  is  produced  where  an  entire  block,  including 
the  alley,  is  utilized  by  one  owner.  Perhaps  the  second  highest  type 
and  value  is  produced  where  one-half  a block  is  operated  and  managed 
by  one  owner.  The  value  of  consolidation  lessens  as  the  amount  of 
ground  occupied  decreases.  Hence  consolidation  always  should  be 
encouraged,  because  here  is  where  the  greatest  value  lies. 

7.  Two  city  blocks  immediately  adjoining  may  be  immensely 
different  in  value  because  owned,  operated  and  rented  differently,  yet 
each  enjoying  the  best  possible  management  with  present  improve- 
ments and  conditions. 

8.  Generally,  but  not  always,  the  more  owners  in  a given  busi- 
ness block  the  less  value  it  has.  The  corners  predominate,  if  they  are 
large,  stylish  and  up-to-date ; they  not  only  greatly  increase  their  own 
former  value,  but  create  a new  and  additional  value  for  the  entire 
block. 

9.  It  is  almost  superfluous  to  say  we  cannot  tax  a thing  now 
more  than  its  reasonable  annual  rental  value  because  we  believe  and 
feel  in  the  future  it  will  be  worth  more.  All  assessments  must  be 
based  upon  present  cash  value  or  proportion  of  present  cash  value. 

10.  The  broad,  sane,  commonsense  rule  governing  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  taxation  is:  It  must  be  general,  it  must  be  uniform,  and  it 
must  be  apportioned  equally  according  to  value,  and  no  portion  can 
legally  be  levied  upon  prospective  or  future  value.  This  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  make  any  tax  lawful.  All  special  and  invidious  discrim- 
inations against  individuals  are  illegal  and  for  all  such  cases  a general 
right  exists  to  assessors  or  proper  officers  to  refund  to  individuals  any 
sums  paid  by  them  which  are  found  to  have  been  wrongfully  exacted 
or  for  any  reason  are  inequitable. 

11.  If  these  few  plain,  simple  rules  are  complied  with  a given 
assessor  can  hardly  make  a serious  error  or  mistake  in  any  given  case. 

Napoleon  Wagner. 

The  above  was  published  in  The  Denver  Republican  June  10, 1911. 
IT  REALLY  CONSTITUTES  OUR  PLAN. 

The  following  is  explanatory  and  is  intended  to  outline  the  method 
of  putting  the  above  plan  in  practical  everyday  use.  Our  observation 
on  taxation  may  materially  aid  in  this  respect.  Each  city  can  aid  one 


5 


another  and  us  in  better  perfecting  the  details  which  we  heartily  wel- 
come. To  the  end  that  we  may  all  unitedly  enjoy  and  live  under  the 
protection  and  manifold  blessings  of  the  ideal  or  perfect  system,  then 
we  shall  truly  call  the  whole  system  ours. 

The  origin  of  all  value  is  use,  hence,  uniformly  value  all  lands, 
improvements,  personal  property,  franchises,  rights  of  way,  railway 
property,  docks,  piers,  wharves,  bridges  and  all  other  property  of 
whatsoever  kind  or  nature;  which  is  subject  to  taxation,  at  its  full 
cash  value. 

A NEW  PLAN  FOR  EQUALIZING  TAXATION. 

On  the  basis  of  the  reasonable  annual  average  utility  or  probable 
utility  if  vacant.  Take  only  the  utility  of  ground  floor  to  establish- 
the  value  of  lots.  To  establish  the  value  of  buildings  take  the  entire 
utility  or  if  vacant  probable  utility,  evidenced  by  sworn  annual  state- 
ments of  both  tenants  and  owners,  penalizing  false  statement  reports, 
etc.  Slight  modifications  may  be  made  by  ever  keeping  in  mind  and 
adhering  closely  to  the  great  controlling  factor  uniformity  of  utility 
or  probable  utility  to  ascertain  just  value,  and  to  conform  to  the  stat- 
utory requirements  of  taxation  of  the  different  states.  By  the  applica- 
tion and  use  of  such  regulations  as  shall  secure  a just  valuation  for 
taxation  of  all  property,  real  and  personal. 

This  annual  statistical  information  will  give  exact  justice  to  all 
alike,  it  will  favor  none  and  harm  none.  No  one  will  pay  on  fictitious 
or  speculative  value.  All  will  pay  only  on  amount  received  or  receiv- 
able, all  at  the  same  proportionate  value.  If  this  system  is  properly 
executed  and  carried  out,  it  will  be  the  most  ideal  and  just  method  the 
human  mind  has  devised  for  taxing  all  exactly  alike  according  to  equit- 
able value. 

When  investigating  the  value  of  business  blocks  in  Denver,  we 
found  some  with  only  one  story  buildings  on  lots  Nos.  1 and  2 and 
likewise  on  lots  Nos.  3 and  4,  here  we  took  the  total  rental  value  of 
each  which  admitted  of  absolute  correct  comparison  to  ascertain  the 
value  of  the  lots  alone,  then  later  valued  each  improvement  separately 
to  ascertain  the  value  of  the  buildings.  We  then  decided  it  would  be 
just  as  fair  and  absolutely  correct  a basis  to  take  the  total  rental  value 
of  the  ground  floor  and  basement  only,  no  matter  how  improved,  to 
ascertain  and  compare  the  value  of  the  lots  alone. 

It  may  be  contended  when  we  get  and  use  the  rental  value  of  the 


6 


ground  floor  only  to  measure  and  compare  the  value  of  the  lots  alone 
we  by  so  doing  are  valuing  part  of  the  building,  known  as  the  first 
floor  and  basement  with  the  lots  and  are  therefore  valuing  that  part 
of  the  building  twice  unless  we  deduct  this  when  we  come  to  value  the 
building  or  improvement  separately  from  the  lot  on  which  it  stands. 
Obviously  this  is  not  true  nor  is  the  above  argument  tenable.  We 
simply  use  this  knowledge  or  information  of  rental  value  of  ground 
floor  as  the  only  correct  measuring  tape  which  is  elastic  enough  to  ex- 
actly fit  any  piece  of  property,  no  matter  what  shape  or  where  located, 
with  absolute  honesty  and  fairness.  This  will  have  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  putting  proper  value  on  buildings  or  improvements  separ- 
ately on  the  basis  of  the  reasonable  annual  rental  value. 

TO  VALUE  BUSINESS  PROPERTY. 

1st.  Divide  any  block  into  four  equal  parts — then  value  each  i/4 
separately.  2nd.  Take  the  total  rent  of  ground  floor  only  to  establish 
the  value  of  the  lots  without  the  improvement  of  any  practical  number 
of  square  feet  or  lots  not  to  exceed  % of  block,  which  will  admit  of 
fair  comparison  with  the  total  rent  of  like  or  equal  number  of  square 
feet  or  lots  immediately  adjoining  or  corresponding,  total  not  to  exceed 
the  1/4  block.  3rd.  Then  divide  the  latter  into  the  former  and  the 
result  will  be  the  rent  ratio  which  is  the  exact  number  of  times  the 
corner  is  worth  more  than  the  adjoining  lots.  4th.  This  will  elim- 
inate all  chance,  guess  work,  fictitious  or  speculative  value.  5th.  This 
will  be  elastic  enough  to  go  up  or  down,  it  will  keep  exact  step  with 
the  stationary,  rapid  or  slow  increase  or  decrease  of  value  from  year 
to  year,  always  stable  and  uniform  according  to  exact  value.  6th. 
Each  ^ block  must  be  valued  separately,  because  when  we  go  beyond 
the  1/4  block  line,  we  are  encroaching  upon  the  sphere  influence  and 
value  of  the  next  corner,  all  of  which  may  be  very  different  from  the 
one  we  have  just  valued.  7th.  Value  the  second  corner  the  same  as 
No.  1,  and  the  3rd  and  4th  likewise.  8th.  Alley  influence  need  not 
be  taken  into  special  consideration  because  each  14  block  enjoys  prac- 
tically the  same  benefits  from  it.  Use  simple  percentage  of  value  of 
the  full  or  standard  size  lot  to  ascertain  the  correct  value  of  odd  feet 
or  inches  in  depth  or  width. 

TO  VALUE  RESIDENCE  PROPERTY. 

We  find  it  impracticable  to  give  detailed  direction  and  instruction 
for  valuing  all  residence  property,  nor  do  we  deem  it  necessary,  be- 
cause different  cities  and  assessors  use  slightly  different  methods,  both 


7 


in  valuing  the  lots  and  the  improvements.  This  will  do  no  harm,  pro- 
viding they  use  the  correct  basis  to  ascertain  the  true  value.  This  is 
equally  true  in  valuing  personal  property,  as  well  as  farm  land  and 
all  other  property  and  improvements.  The  statutes  of  the  different 
states  vary  somewhat  in  directing  and  commanding  just  how  this  shall 
be  done,  some  go  into  greater  detail  than  others.  In  all  cases  the 
statutes  must  be  fully  complied  with.  Our  plan  recognizes  and  wel- 
comes this  aid.  Our  general  directions  will  be  sufficiently  explicit  to 
enable  anyone  with  average  intelligence  to  make  correct  application 
of  the  same,  viz. : 

In  all  cases  value  the  land  separately;  value  all  improvements 
separately;  then  add  the  two  together  for  total  value.  Value  uni- 
formly all  lands,  improvements,  personal  property,  franchises,  rights 
of  way,  railway  property,  docks,  piers,  wharves,  bridges,  and  all  other 
property  of  whatsoever  kind  or  nature,  which  is  subject  to  taxation  at 
its  full  cash  value,' the  basis  of  the  reasonable  annual  average  utility 
or  probable  utility  if  vacant,  by  the  application  and  use  of  such  regu- 
lations as  shall  secure  a just  valuation  for  taxation  of  all  property, 
real  and  personal.  Maps  should  be  prepared  and  used  to  indicate  the 
frontage  value  along  each  side  of  every  block,  viz. : The  value  per  front 
foot  of  a vacant  inside,  standard  size  lot,  with  a different  color  of 
figures  to  show  marking  of  corner  values,  in  both  business  and  resi- 
dence. This  will  eliminate  all  possibility  of  missing  or  not  valuing 
each  piece  of  property.  It  will  show  relative  value  at  a glance.  Acre 
property  should  be  marked  the  price  in  dollars  per  acre.  These  maps 
should  be  arranged  in  numerical  order  and  drawn  to  a uniform  scale, 
and  re-marked  each  year  of  valuation  and  for  general  use  of  any  tax- 
payer, together  with  the  open  door  for  use  of  all  records,  maps,  charts, 
etc.,  of  the  assessor’s  office,  including  the  widest  publicity.  Do  this 
honestly  and  conscientiously  five  years  and  you  will  have  no  “ma- 
chine” or  graft  in  municipal  government,  because  throilgh  this  and 
the  county  treasurer’s  office  come  the  sinews  of  war  for  good  or  evil. 

It  may  be  said  no  rent  comes  from  the  value  of  City  lots  alone. 
If  so,  it  is  impossible  to  separate  it  from  that  which  comes  from  the 
building  or  improvement.  Indeed  they  claim  it  all  comes  from  the 
building.  Obviously  this  is  not  tenable,  in  technical  theory  it  might 
be  correct  but  in  practice  this  theory  will  not  hold  good.  They  must 
both  be  used  together,  one  without  the  other  is  impossible.  The  build- 
ing must  have  a place  on  which  to  rest,  before  any  value  can  come  from 
it  for  fair  or  reasonable  returns,  hence  there  is  a relative  value  between 


8 


the  vacant  ground  and  the  building.  No  belter  or  fairer  basis  can  be 
made  than  to  take  the  utility  or  rent  or  probable  utility  or  rent  if 
vacant  of  the  ground  floor  or  principal  story  only  to  ascertain  and 
compare  the  value  of  one  vacant  lot  with  another. 

The  above  correct  definition  of  a corner,  the  illustration  of  which 
is  perhaps  somewhat  magnified.  The  so-called  spite  walls  generally 
mean  a strip  50  feet  wide,  or  two  of  our  lots,  we  believe  never  less  in 
the  entire  business  district,  calls  forceable  attention  to  the  fact,  that 
some  reasonable  provision  should  be  made  regulating  the  use  of  busi- 
ness corners.  Preventing  any  owner  by  law  from  destroying  or  devi- 
talizing the  original  inherent  value  of  the  full  one-quarter  block — from 
the  best  or  principal  street — by  ownership  or  use  of  less  than  that 
amount. 

Obviously  this  is  a community  moral  and  public  wrong,  calling 
loudly  for  a remedy.  Would  it  be  for  one  moment  allowed  in  Ger- 
many? In  Germany  a community  right  prevails  over  private  usurpa- 
tion or  lessening  of  communal  value  in  a given  corner  and  either  abso- 
lute prevention  (of  this  well  recognized  public  wrong)  or  annually 
penalizing  the  small  strip  on  the  corner  to  the  full  amount  it  lessens 
the  value  of  balance  of  the  one-quarter  block.  Any  competent  court 
of  equity  in  the  United  States,  by  either  permanently  enjoining  the 
wrong  or  imposing  an  annual  fine  or  tax  for  such  time  as  the  wrong 
may  exist,  undoubtedly  would  enforce  this  right. 

Why  should  a City  lose  this  (in  some  cases  immense)  extra  value 
each  year  for  taxation?  Does  not  the  City  per  se  by  its  inhabitants 
create  all  demand  utility  or  value  ? If  so,  who  will  dare  say  it  has  not 
the  right  to  regulate  what  it  produces — to  prevent  the  loss  of  this  great 
economic  value.  Thereby  making  16th  or  the  best  street  property, 
out  of  cross  street  or  cheap  lots. 

Is  it  not  contrary  to  the  assessor’s  official  oath,  as  well  as  silly 
and  ridiculous,  to  try  to  save  this  loss  by  shifting  the  extra  value  on 
the  adjoining  lots,  which  have  just  been  robbed  and  deprived  of  all 
extra  earning  power  or  corner  influence  they  originally  possessed? 
Is  this  not  adding  insult  to  injury  ? Is  this  not  exactly  what  the  pres- 
ent system  of  taxation  is  doing?  Is  it  not  what  nearly  all  other 
systems  have  been  doing?  Is  this  not  the  proper  time  to  discard  all 
such  unfair  and  unjust  systems  ? Is  it  not  the  proper  time  to  at  once 
accept  and  adopt  the  Napoleon  Wagner  System  of  absolutely  fair  and 
honest  taxation  to  rich  and  poor  alike,  and  especially  when  we  have 
and  can  find  nothing  nearly  as  good  to  take  its  place  ? 


9 


It  is  truly  said  we  ought  not  to  tear  down  unless  we  offer  some- 
thing better  to  replace  the  deposed  structure,  method  or  system.  Ours 
is  an  entirely  original  and  new  plan  which  can  only  give  exact  justice 
on  the  mutual  plan  of  common  honesty. 

OBSERVATION  ON  TAXATION. 

The  origin  of  all  value  is  use  or  probable  use.  All  the  so-called 
units  which  are  used  as  a convenience  to  measure  with,  are  but  frac- 
tional parts  of  a normal  sized  lot.  Their  correct  value  can  only  be 
ascertained  by  utility.  If  this  is  true  of  the  unit,  it  is  doubly  true  of 
the  full  sized  lot.  The  separate  utility  or  value  of  the  front,  middle  or 
rear  part  of  a standard  sized  lot  or  plot  is  unascertainaUe.  Any 
attempt  to  do  so  will  be  vague,  indefinite,  impracticable  and  can  only 
result  in  chance,  guess,  discrimination  and  ultimate  failure,  for  want 
of  feasible,  demonstrable  utility  as  a correct  basis.  Correct  value 
established  by  utility  or  probable  utility  can  only  be  had  by  using  as 
a basis  the  entire  standard  size  lot  or  plot  or  some  practical  proportion 
of  the  whole.  Then  use  simple  percentage  of  value  of  the  standard 
size  lot  to  ascertain  the  value  of  odd  feet  or  inches  in  depth  or  width. 
Not  a percentage  or  table  based  on  a greater  value  for  the  front  than 
the  rear,  or  any  other  part  of  the  standard  sized  lot.  This  will  posi- 
tively interdict  and  justly  prohibit  the  use  of  any  and  all  units  or 
tables  of  percentage,  based  upon  a value  of  one  part  more  than  any 
other  part  of  the  standard  size  lot.  Naturally  this  will  prohibit  the 
use  of  the  Hoffman-Neill  rule,  now  in  use  in  New  York  City,  the  Chi- 
cago plan,  the  Philadelphia  plan  and  the  Somers  or  unit  system,  etc., 
because  all  of  these  cities  use  a unit  foot,  1 foot  front  by  100  feet 
deep  away  from  all  corner  influences,  etc.,  to  measure  with,  or  other 
methods  which  are  based  on  a greater  value  than  its  size  is,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  whole  or  standard  size  lot. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  the  unit  is  a convenience  only  in  making 
comparison ; it  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  value.  The  unit  must 
depend  upon  ^itility  to  give  it  the  proper  value  or  all  will  be  out  of 
proportion  to  relative  value.  If  a unit  of  any  size  is  used  to  measure 
with,  it  must  be  based  on  the  fractional  part  of  the  standard  size  lot, 
hence  its  value  will  be  in  exact  proportion  to  its  size  of  the  whole  lot. 
If  the  unit  used  is  $100,  too  high  or  too  low  in  measuring  a lot  fifty 
times  its  size,  it  will  render  value  fifty  times  $100,  or  $5,000 — out  of 
proper  proportion  to  the  correct  value  of  the  lot.  Experience  shows 
it  is  generally  too  low.  Can  any  city  afford  to  lose  all  this  immense 


10 


amount — many  millions  of  dollars  of  value  which  are  annually  escap- 
ing all  taxation?  In  simple  justice  must  we  not  consider  all  such 
methods  obsolete? 

As  far  as  we  know  there  is  no  plan  or  system  in  use  any- 
where, except  the  one  we  suggest,  which  we  believe  alone  can  and  will 
unerringly  and  justly  do  the  work.  Its  adoption  will  be  no  costly  or 
dangerous  experiment!  it  is  so  short  and  simple — a child  can  under- 
stand it. 

Valuing  lots  with  the  same  mathematical  precision  in  the  different 
blocks  similarly  situated  does  not  make  it  correct.  If  one  is  wrong 
all  are  wrong.  It  is  poor  excuse  or  justification  that  it  does  likewise 
with  the  next  block,  or  the  next  or  the  next,  etc.  Two  or  more  wrongs 
never  yet  made  one  right — each  adds  insult  to  injury.  If  the  basis 
of  any  plan  or  system  is  ivrong  the  whole  thing  must  necessarily  be 
wrong. 

All  lawful  taxation  must  be  a blanket  or  cover  of  uniform  thick- 
ness spread  and  applied  to  all  lots  in  a given  block  exactly  alike  as  to 
REAL  VALUE.  Herein  is  where  most  all  system  fail,  because  tliey  take 
it  for  granted  if  the  tax  is  spread  and  applied  uniformly  according  to 
number,  location  and  position,  this  makes  it  uniform  according  to 
value,  which  is  far  from  the  truth.  This  fallacious  error  and  argu- 
ment has  been  adopted  in  the  assessor’s  office  and  is  in  pretty  general 
use  through  the  country.  Why  require  two,  three  or  more  owners  to 
pay  on  valuations  of  from  5%  to  50%  more  than  each  other,  when  ail 
derive  and  can  only  realize  the  same  amount  of  rent  and  are  practically 
of  the  same  value?  This  is  exactly  what  most  systems  are  doing  today, 
because  of  their  mathematical  jugglery  of  prepared  tables  to  find  or 
locate  value,  and  especially  the  pernicious  percentage  tables  which  are 
nearly  all  on  a false  basis. 

To  illustrate,  an  assessor’s  official  figures  given  for  block 

are  as  follows,  viz. : Lots  1 and  2,  $255,500.  Lots  3 and  4,  $87,600. 
Hence  1 and  2 pays  on  valuation  of  a small  fraction  less  than  thrice 
as  much  as  3 and  4,  when  it  should  pay  on  valuation  of  5.08  times 
as  much  as  3 and  4,  as  evidenced  by  each  30  days  rent  receipts  of 
ground  floor  only  to  admit  of  fair  and  just  comparison.  Lots  1 and  2 
receive  $1,270  per  month ; 3 and  4 receive  $250.00  per  month.  If  both 
are  taxed  alike,  1 and  2 should  pay  5.08  times  more  than  3 and  4,  which 
equals  $445,008,  but  as  it  only  pays  on  valuation  of  $255,500,  it  there- 
fore entirely  escapes  paying  on  valuation  of  $198,509  each  year.  Nos. 

3 and  4 are  valued  at  $20,300  more  than  Nos.  5 and  6 and  $36,600  more 


11 


than  Nos.  7 and  8;  is  this  not  ridiculous,  from  15%  to  50%  when  all 
have  the  same  ground  rental?  What  is  true  of  this  block  and  corner, 
is  practically  true  of  every  other  simularly,  situated,  to  a greater  or 
less  degree,  in  the  entire  business  district  in  many  cities.  Some  1 and 
2 lot  corners  escaping  payment  for  from  $100,000  to  nearly  $200,000 
each  year,  while  on  its  apparent  face  it  does  not  seem  to  make  so  much 
difference  where  four  or  more  corner  lots  are  held  by  one  title.  Yet 
this  is  an  enormous  error,  because  this  greater  tax  value  should  be 
apportioned  to  all  other  tax  payers  in  the  city,  lessening  each  one’s 
tax  to  that  extent. 

We  believe  it  is  apparent  that  each  first  and  second  lot  on  every 
corner  in  tlv  entire  business  district  will  be  greatly  undervalued,  viz. : 
approximately.  The  following  tabulated  figures  do  not  represent  an 
entire  loss  by  escape  payment,  but  it  does  represent  entire  relative 
or  discriminatory  loss,  in  addition  to  a very  great  total  loss  of  value, 
which  proves  the  imparative  necessity  of  just  equalization. 


Blk. 

209 

Lots 

31 

and 

S2—Rent  ratio 

3.80 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

$104,240 

Blk. 

209 

Lots 

1 

and 

2=Rent  ratio 

3.57 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

82,420 

Blk. 

195 

Lots 

1 

and 

2— Rent  ratio 

3.68 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

94,960 

Blk. 

140 

Lots 

31 

and 

Z2=Eent  ratio 

4. 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

204,000 

Blk. 

141 

Lots 

17 

and 

lS=Rent  ratio  5.08 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

189,508 

Blk. 

196 

Lots 

17 

and 

lS=Rent  ratio 

4.31 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

105,633 

Blk. 

98 

Lots 

15 

and  l^=Rent  ratio 

6.25 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

403,075 

Blk. 

161 

Lots 

1 

and 

2=Eent  ratio 

3.40 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

126,160 

Blk. 

67 

Lots 

17 

and 

lS=Rent  ratio  4.43 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

88,829 

Blk. 

76 

Lots 

31 

and 

S2=Rent  ratio 

4.84 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

172,208 

Blk. 

40 

Lots 

17 

and  IS— Rent  ratio 

3. 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

28,500 

Blk. 

128 

Lots 

' - 17 

and 

lS=Rent  ratio 

4.82 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

281,386 

Blk. 

128 

Lots 

15  and 

IQ— Rent  ratio 

4.77 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

281,067 

Blk. 

196 

Lots 

31 

and 

S2=Rent  ratio  4.01 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

99,275 

Blk. 

175 

Lots 

15  and 

lQ=Rent'  ratio 

3.68 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

84,680 

Blk. 

161 

Lots 

31 

and 

32=Rent  ratio 

3.25 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

93,180 

Blk. 

209 

Lots 

15 

and 

lQ=Rent  ratio 

4.62 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

135,088 

Blk. 

130 

Lots 

17  and 

IS— Rent  ratio 

3.65 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

164,900 

Blk. 

107 

Lots 

15  and 

lQ=Rent  ratio 

3.53 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

137,240 

Blk. 

161 

Lots 

17, 18 

and 

19=Rent  ratio  3.54 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

223,850 

Blk. 

107 

Lots 

30,  31 

and 

S2=Rent  ratio 

4.66 

Escapes 

Payt. 

on 

Val. 

271,384 

Blk. 

140 

Lots 

17-18  19  and 

20=Rent  ratio  4.75 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

262,137 

Blk. 

129 

Lots 

13-14  15 

and 

IQ— Rent  ratio  3.22 

Escapes 

Bayt. 

on 

Val. 

127,482 

Rent  rafio=The  number  of  times  the  corner  is  worth  more  than  the  ad- 
joining lots  or  equal  number  of  square  feet,  established,  by  utility  of  the 
ground  floor  of  each. 


Where  both  or  all  make  the  best  possible  use  all  should  be  assessed 
at  the  same  relative  value.  We  judge  the  future  by  the  past  and 
present,  hence  the  reasonahle  annual  average  past  and  present  cash 
rent  or  prohahle  utility  is  the  proper  test  for  correct  basis  of  valuation 
either  for  sale  or  assessment.  There  is  no  better  or  more  correct  test 
of  true  value.  Recorded  leases  for  future  rent  by  irresponsible  ten- 


12 


ants,  which  may  be  voided  or  broken  at  will  of  tenant,  is  like  a rope 
of  sand,  of  little  help  in  arriving  at  real  value.  An  occasional  odd 
sale  may  be  high  or  low  and  likewise  misleading  in  arriving  at  real 
value.  But  practical  every  day  utility,  cash  rent  in  hand  each  30 
days  never  misleads  any  one,  and  on  this  you  can  always  bank. 

If  we  analyze  and  study  the  foregoing  figures  carefully,  it  will 
be  easy  to  see  that  a great  injustice  will  be  done  and  over-assessment 
of  every  3rd,  4th,  5th  and  6th  lots  owned  and  used  independent  of  the 
corners  in  the  entire  business  part  of  the  City.  Because  it  is  an 
established  fact  and  truth,  proven  by  utility  sales,  leases,  rent,  etc., 
which  are  the  safest  and  best  basis  of  all  value,  backed  up  by  the 
community  opinion  of  the  very  best  real'estate  men,  viz.:  That  these 
3rd,  4th,  5th  and  6th  lots,  where  owned  separately  and  used  separately, 
are  worth  only  a very  small  per  cent  more  than  lots  in  the  middle  of 
any  given  block. 

No  system  or  tables  which  finds,  locates  or  renders  two  or  more 
corner  lot  values  the  same  regardless  of  ownership,  not  who,  hut  1,  2 
or  more  owners,  etc.,  under  the  best  possible  management  can  be  appor- 
tioned equally  according  to  value.  This  separate  ownership,  use,  etc., 
is  entirely  different  and  very  much  less  value  where  cut  up  into  small 
holdings.  Tables,  scales,  measures  and  methods  must  make  exceptions 
in  these  cases  if  apportioned  equally  according  to  value.  Let  us  not 
call  any  method  scientific  or  equitable  which  renders  such  errors  and 
injustice.  Other  fairer  methods  must  be  applied  to  fit  these  excep- 
tional cases  if  justice  and  equity  are  had. 

It  condones  the  wrong  and  indeed  puts  a high  premium  on  lots 
1 and  2 for  appropriating  to  itself  and  for  its  own  use  all  the  greater 
value  3,  4,  5 and  6 or  more  inherently  possessed  until  they  were  de- 
barred by  the  act  of  Nos.  1 and  2 of  erecting  a barrier  or  wall.  Saying 
thou  shalt  come  so  far  but  no  farther  or  I will  shut  your  light  out. 
Not  only  daylight  but  all  prospects  of  extra  financial  light  as  well. 
This  may  be  according  to  our  standard  of  commercialism,  legal  and 
customary,  but  does  not  relieve  it  from  being  a moral  and  community 
wrong.  If  all  business  corners  were  so  used  it  would  prevent  all  large 
and  valuable  use  of  every  kind,  vdiich  must  have  large  floor  space  as 
well  as  light  and  air  from  the  corners.  It  is  safe  to  say  it  would 
destroy  nine-tenths  of  the  big  and  very  best  business  in  your  city. 
Do  you  want  to  encourage  small  business  or  sulfer  it  to  destroy  millions 
of  value  of  large  business ; or  do  you  want  to  encourage  beautiful,  large 
airy,  light  uniform  buildings,  suitable  for  all  purposes?  If  so,  then 


13 


you  want  to  encourage  mutual  or  otherwise,  consolidation.  In  con- 
solidation and  use  of  lots  not  merely  1,  2,  3,  4,  but  5,  6,  7,  8 or  more 
lie  the  great  economic  value,  not  only  to  the  owner  or  owners,  but  to 
the  entire  community.  This  view  should  always  be  encouraged  by 
assessors  or  others  having  official  control.  Instead  of  letting  I and  2 
off  each  year  by  nonpayment  of  taxes  on  valuation  of  $198,508  or  more 
as  proven  by  income.  Should  it  not  be  penalized  with  some  extra 
taxation,  not  only  for  depriving  all  other  lots  of  their  inalienable  and 
natural  rights  which  might  share  in  this  extra  valuation,  but  they, 
Nos.  1 and  2,  by  their  will,  act  and  conduct  permanently  deprive  the 
community.  City,  county  and  state  of  a large  amount  of  taxes  annu- 
ally, which  would  be  derived  if  reasonable  consolidation  were  had  or 
1 and  2 be  required  to  pay  their  fair  share. 

To  my  mind  the  weak  spot  in  most  systems  is  in  making  no  differ- 
ence in  valuing  a corner  of  one,  two,  three,  four  or  more  lots,  where 
the  ownership  and  use  are  in  one  or  more  persons.  We  all  know  it  is  a 
demonstrable  fact  when  cut  up  and  used  in  small  tracts  the  less  value 
and  use  it  has.  To  illustrate,  take  four  separate  owners  and  users 
of  the  four  separate  lots  on  any  given  business  corner  of  say  25x125 
feet.  The  only  one  out  of  the  four  who  would  be  justified  by  pru- 
dence and  good  business  judgment  in  erecting  a fine  building,  say  12 
stories  or  less  high,  would  be  No.  1 on  the  corner.  This  would  so 
devitalize  the  other  sites  of  Nos.  2,  3 and  4 that  if  they  erected  the 
same  style,  height  and  cost  of  buildings  on  their  respective  lots  each 
would  be  so  dark  and  “undesirable,  practically  a tunnel  25x125  feet, 
with  but  little  light  from  front  and  rear.  That  if  they  could  be  rented 
at  all,  perhaps  for  not  much  more  than  these  systems  would  demand 
of  each  to  help  pay  the  tax  of  No.  1,  which  completely  sapped  the 
corner  influence.  And  at  the  same  time.  No.  1 might  be  deriving  a 
golden  income  of  its  sweet  corner  influence  of  3,  5,  or  10  times  more 
than  2,  3 or  4,  or  all  of  them  combined.  Yet  this  makes  no  difference, 
so  says  some  of  these  systems.  We  prefer  to  reserve  our  say.  But 
submit  to  any  cool,  sane,  unbiased,  uninfluenced  fair-minded  men,  if 
this  is  not  enough  to  condemn  all  such  systems.  Shall  these  four  cases 
all  be  tarred  with  the  same  stick  and  weighed  with  the  same  loaded 
scales  for  the  great  profit  and  benefit  of  No.  1 and  to  the  great  injury 
and  damage  to  Nos.  2,  3 and  4.  If  this  unquestioned  fault  cannot  be 
recognized  and  properly  repaired,  must  we  not  in  fairness  to  all, 
quickly  condemn  the  whole  system  or  our  assessors  for  adopting  it? 
This  corner  influence  has  greatly  troubled  all  systems  for  ages.  It  is 
comparatively  easy  to  value  inside  lots  by  any  fair  system. 


14 


i\Iany  millions  of  dollars  of  land  values  in  Denver  escape  all  taxa- 
tion owing  to  present  and  past  methods.  This  we  believe  to  be  a con- 
servative estimate.  The  same  is  probably  true  of  most  American  cities. 
This  statement  sounds  perfectly  incredible,  until  it  is  explained  that 
most  of  the  methods  or  systems  now  in  use  are  of  the  kind  that  taxpay- 
ers are  expected  to  pay  for,  but  are  not  expected  to  know  anything 
about.  We  now  offer  you  a system  as  simple  as  the  a,  b,  c’s,  which  you 
can  all  easily  understand,  and  the  sum  total  of  cost  to  put  it  into  effect 
is  average  common^  sense. 

Underlying  all  shortcomings  of  American  municipal  government 
are  ignorance  and  indifference  of  the  taxpayers,  brought  about  by 
shameful  and  ruthless  disregard  of  fair  and  honest  protests  of  indi- 
vidual rights.  This  can  easily  be  changed  by  education,  which  all 
taxpayers  will  eagerly  seek,  only  when  assured  of  absolute  equality  and 
fairness  to  all  alike.  To  illustrate,  JJ nif ormity  in  appearance  on  its 
face  does  not  make  uniformity  of  value.  It  requires  use  or  utility  to 
establish  uniform  value;  there  is  no  other  way.  This  use  or  utility 
varies  with  almost  every  business  corner,  hence  it  is  rank  discrimina- 
tion to  tax  all  lots  alike,  simply  because  they  are  numbered  alike  or 
located  alike  or  are  alike  with  corresponding  lots  in  adjoining  or  other 
blocks.  Courts  hold  discrimination  is  unconstitutional. 

What  every  community  needs  is  n permanent  taxpayers^  organiza- 
tion, clothed  ivith  absolute  authority  to  hear  all  worthy  complaints  and 
right  every  wrong.  Then  give  its  daily  routine  work  the  widest  pub- 
licity and  you  cannot  fail.  Not  the  ordinary  taxpayers  league,- 
largely  political,  clothed  only  with  advisory  powers  to  find  fault,  make 
general  complaint  and  do  nothing.  This  permanent  organization 
would  be  a great  power  in  solving  civic  problems,  supervising  expendi- 
ture, tax  levy,  budget,  relative  value,  etc.,  etc.,  but  you  must  get  the 
right  men — not  failures  or  office  seekers. 

We  challenge  any  honest  man  to  find  just  fault  with  the  basis,  fair- 
ness and  outline  of  our  proposed  plan.  We  well  know  many  details 
should  and  will  be  added,  as  in  years  to  come  they  materialize  and 
crystalize  into  proper  form  and  use  for  a^ffiption  If  this  cannot  be 
done,  then  let  us  quickly  adopt  it  and  all  for  once,  enjoy  a square  and 
equal  deal ; and  forever  cut  off,  shut  off  and  put  a permanent  stop  to 
all  special  privilege. 

AVe  mistake  the  temper  of  the  Denver  taxpayers — if  they  are  going 
to  stand  for  such scientific  work scientific  escape  of 


15 


paying  on  millions  of  value  by  the  few,  who  can  most  or  all  afford  to 
pay  their  full  and  fair  share. 

Fair,  equal  and  ahsolutely  just  taxation  should  be  made  a para- 
mount issue  in  every  city,  village  and  hamlet,  and  kept  permanently 
before  the  people  until  adopted.  What  we  ivant  and  must  have  is  per- 
mament  organization  of  sincere  advocates  to  full  inform  the,  people,  of 
the  existing  evil  and  clearly  point  the  way  to  a practical  and  feasible 
remedy.  Then  you  can  trust  the  people  for  prompt  and  accurate  re- 
sults,— The  people  have  the  final  say — 

Obviously  1 and  2 are  so  greedy  and  bold  they  are  not  merely 
satisfied  with  depriving  Nos.  3,  4,  5 and  6 of  their  inalienable  earning 
power,  utility  and  value,  but  are  shifting  a large  part  of  their  fair 
share  of  taxes  annually  on  these  poor  lots,  which  they  have  just  de- 
prived. They  have  no  right  to  do  either.  First,  this  extra  burden 
must  be  shifted  back  where  it  rightfully  belongs  on  Nos.  1 and  2. 
Second,  we  must  ask  our  courts  if  Nos.  1 and  2 have  a legal  right  to  do 
this  trick,  without  being  penalized  annually  to  make  whole  all  the 
neighboring  lots  which  suffer  injury  and  damage.  See  illustrated 
blocks  for  justly  equalizing  and  fairly  comparing  the  two  methods. 


16 


BLOCK  NO.  EAST  DENVER, 
Valued  by  the  Somers  or  Unit  System. 


$ 33,100 


$ 1,975  ^ 


CO 

CO 

CO 

o 

0 M 

01  Oi 
th  cq 

(Nl 

O 

O tH 
CO  ^ 


O Oi 
O (CJ 


< O 


$148,000 

1 

82,500 

2 

61,500 

3 

43,400 

4 

41,600 

5 

36,000 

6 

36,000 

7 

36,000 

8 

36,00 

9 

37,400 

10 

38,000 

11 

42,000 

12 

'54,080 

13 

72,800 

14 

119,600 

15 

231,520 

16 

53,480 


B 


32 

$140,000| 

31 

73,50o' 

30 

49,000' 

, , 1 

29 

45,500 

1 

28 

42,200 

27 

38,000 

26 

37,500 

25 

37,500 

24 

37,500 

23 

37,500' 

22 

■ 40,500 

21 

46,550  ' 

20 

57,150; 

19 

65,500; 

18 

101,550  < 

c 

17 

204,250  c 

c 

cc  o 

CO  rH 
to 
CO  O 
cq  O 
t- 


48,450 


Land  value  of  the  same  block  as  appears  on  the  opposite  page  herein, 
according  to  the  present  method  of  the  Somers  or  Unit  System  now  being 
tried  in  Denver. 

A=The  amount  of  over  valuation  of  each  inside  lot. 

B=The  amount  of  under  valuation  of  each  pair  of  corner  lots. 

C=The  per  cent  of  annual  rent  on  value  of  each  lot. 


17 


BLOCK  NO  16L  EAST  DENVER, 
Valued  by  Our  Proposed  System. 


S'!  ZO 
LO  . 


o 

r-l  1>- 


o CO 

o • 


o 

o o 


o cc 
o o 

C<J 

oS 

CD 


<J  o 


$131,800 

1 

131,800 

2 

39,600--10%  B 

3 

37,800=  5%  B 

4 

36,000 

5 

36,000 

6 

36,000 

7 

36,000 

8 

36,000 

9 

36,000 

10 

37,800=  5%  B 

11 

37,800=  5%B 

12 

39,600=10%  B 

13 

39,600=10%  B 

14 

1 ' 

202,300 

16 

202,300 

16 

32 

$116,287 

31 

116,287 

30 

B 10% 

41,250 

29 

B 5% 

39,375 

28 

37,600 

27 

37,600 

26 

37,600 

25 

37,500 

24 

37,500 

23 

37,500 

22 

B 5% 

39,375 

21 

B 5% 

39,376 

20 

B10% 

41,250 

( 

K 

19 

B10% 

41,260  j 

j 

18 

177,126  < 
( 

17 

177,125  ( 

C 

L.and  value  of  the  same  block  as  appears  on  the  opposite  page  herein,  ac- 
cording to  utility  or  present  honest  earning  power. 

A=Monthly  rental  value  of  each  lot. 

B=Per  cent  added  to  all  lots  because  of  their  proximity  to  corners. 
C=The  per  cent  of  annual  rent  on  value  of  each  lot. 

D=For  the  base  or  apparent  discrepancy  of  value  see  next  pageiJ^ 


A $1,062  1,062  200  200  200  200  150  150  150  150  150  150  150  150  492  492 


Here  is  the  same  block  and  the  same  rental,  valued  by  each  method^ 
the  total  value  of  the  entire  block  remains  the  same.  Our  system  re- 
moves the  extra  unwarranted  and  unjust  burden  from  the  inside  lots 
to  the  corners,  where  we  demonstrate  and  prove  by  income  it  justly 
belongs.  In  valuing  this  block  we  were  refused  information  on  ground 
floor  rental  of  values  of  lots  from  No.  11  to  No.  16  inclusive.  Here  we 
adopted  in  lieu  the  known  rental  value  of  the  nearest  corresponding 
lots.  We  also  accept  as  a basis  the  Somers  or  unit  systems  value  of 
inside  lots,  while  this  is  not  correct  by  $1,500  over  value  on  lots  Nos, 
23  to  28  inclusive,  and  a few  discretionary  matters,  but  it  is  near 
enough  for  our  present  purpose  of  comparison.  It  clearly  shows  how 
easy  and  flexible  it  is  to  adapt  our  plan  to  any  condition,  no  matter 
how  complicated.  If  we  can  value  one  block  correctly  we  can  value 
any  entire  city  the  same.  We  are  persuaded  to  feel,  because  of  its 
absolute  honesty  and  fairness,  it  will  find  favorable  recognition  and 
perhaps  speedy  and  universal  adoption,  especially  among  the  large 
cities  throughout  the  world.  Because  here  is  where  inestimable  value 
of  economic  civic  housekeeping  can  be  practiced,  utilized  or  wasted. 
To  illustrate,  take  Manhattan,  New  York  City:  A part  of  the  Flatiron 
building  site  brought  nearly  $11,000,000  an  acre.  ‘‘Key”  plots  and 
other  desirable  bits  down  town  have  sold  at  the  rate  of  $24,000,000 
to  $28,000,000  an  acre.  It  is  said  some  sales  have  been  made  recently 
for  building  sites  alone  at  the  rate  of  $38,000,000  an  acre. 

It  is  generally  conceded  3rd  and  4th  lots  from  any  corner  in  a 
residence  district  is  of  less  value  that  lots  in  the  middle  of  a block, 
and  especially  when  the  corner  lots  are  vacant,  because  of  the  con- 
stant menace  and  danger  of  an  undesirable  building  obstructing  the 
view,  light,  air,  etc.  This  same  rule  holds  good  in  any  business  dis- 
trict. Is  it  not  true  that  1 and  2 may  front  their  little  stores  to  the 
principal  street  and  back  their  rear  doors  up  against  3 and  4?  Or,  if 
1 and  2 erects  a large,  stylish  building,  does  it  not  completely  shut  out 
3 and  4 by  its  permanent  side  wall  ? If  this  is  true,  then  3 and  4 can 
only  derive  the  same  general  temporary  increase  of  value,  because 
of  No.  1 and  2’s  stylish  building  in  common  with  all  other  lots  in  the 
middle  of  the  block,  except,  perhaps,  a slight  additional  value  because 
of  its  nearness  or  proximity  to  the  corner.  A fortiori.  A5  the  city 
grows,  the  activities,  necessities  and  convenience  of  a large  population 
creat  an  immense  increase  demand,  utility  and  value.  Keal  perma- 
nent VALUE.  Are  not  all  lots  by  nature  entitled  to  share  in  this  value 
alike,  proportionately  with  the  fair  or  reasonable  use  of  the  block. 


which  is  not  created  or  produced  by  any  individual  or  any  individuals 
improvements,  but  by  all  individuals  collectively?  If  this  is  true, 
then  does  not  1 and  2’s  stylish  building,  no  matter  how  costly,  become 
a constant  hindrance,  menace  and  permanent  damage  to  all  lots  to 
the  middle  of  the  block,  preventing  them  from  sharing  proportionately 
equal  in  this  unearned  increment,  which  they  are  justly  entitled  to? 

Buildings  do  not  produce  value — the  people  do — and  in  proof 
of  this  statement:  Let  all  the  people  leave  a town  and  what  value 
will  the  buildings  have?  No  one  has  a moral  or  legal  right  to  suffer 
their  property  to  become  an  ohstruction  to  the  neighborhood  than  they 
have  to  commit  a nuisance.  An  unreasonable  persistent  vacancy  may 
be  construed  as  a legal  obstruction.  Oppose  the  obstruction,  whether 
on  corner  or  inside  lots,  as  all  other  wrongs,  by  reasonable  annual  tax 
or  fine,  until  it  is  removed,  never  by  undue  harsh  means,  confiscation^ 
or  hy  aholishing  private  property  in  land. 

If  wealthy  men  and  corporations  seek  to  avoid  in  keeping  back 
from  the  state  what  property  belongs  to  it,  his  or  their  just  share  of 
the  public  burdens;  who  crawl  out  of  the  payment  through  fraud  or 
favoritism,  are  all  such  not  only  moral  but  legal  grafters  as  well? 
Should  they  not  recognize  their  turpitude?  Is  this  not  one  of  the 
principal  causes  of  dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  small  property  own- 
ers? Who  is  to  blame  for  this  ingratitude  but  the  wrongdoers  them- 
selves ? 

Will  not  a passing  glance  at  the  map  of  this  year’s  assessed  valu- 
ations in  the  Denver  business  district  show  hundreds  of  grave,  unjust 
discriminations,  perhaps  worse  than  ever  before  ? 

Mr.  and  Mrs  Taxpayer,  are  you  not  one  of  a large  per  cent,  pay- 
ing not  only  your  own  tax,  but  paying  so  high  a tax  that  someone  else 
just  as  well  or  better  able  to  pay,  is  not  paying  his  or  their  fair  share  ? 

Think  it  over — then  join  the  permanent  tax  payers  organization, 
whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  hear  every  just  complaint  and  right  every 
wrong. 

When  we  first  started  to  investigate  these  systems  of  taxation,  it 
was  from  a personal  or  selfish  interest,  but  have  long  since  dropped 
the  personal  interest  point  of  view.  Now  we  feel  is  it  an  important 
duty  to  aid  all  we  can  in  righting  this  great  public  wrong,  because 
the  more  we  dig  and  study  these  systems  and  figures,  the  blacker  they 
look.  Not  unlike  a seething  mass  of  corruption,  if  the  former  methods 
were  rotten,  the  present  looks  doubly  so.  We  now  believe  it  is  an 
imperative  duty  we  owe  our  conscience,  our  neighbors  and  the  public 


20 


in  aiding  to  the  full  strength  of  our  feeble  ability  in  making  these 
systems  and  their  figures  plainly  and  clearly  before  all  the  people,  and 
especially  all  the  taxpayers,  and  then  let  them  decide  what  they  want. 

Have  we  not  brought  forth  certain  facts  which  go  far  to  confirm 
the  opinion  very  generally  held,  that  systematic  efforts  have  been  made 
by  many  assessors  to  favor  the  rich  coiner  owners  and  throw 'the  great 
burden  of  taxation  on  the  middle  class  and  jioor. 

There  is  probably  no  sort  of  law  breaking  which  is  undertaken 
with  such  lightness  of  heart  and  such  confident  attempts  at  self -justifi- 
cation as  in  the  form  of  under-valuation  and  over- valuation  of  adjoin- 
ing business  lots  by  assessors. 

My  great  and  earnest  desire  is  to  unselfishly  get  this  important 
and  just  principal  thoroughly  reorganized  and  permanently  established 
for  the  love  of  truth  and  justice.  And  for  the  inestimable  benefit  to 
be  derived  from  it,  not  only  in  our  own  beautiful  city  and  state,  but 
all  other  cities  and  states,  and  the  common  welfare  and  real  good  of  the 
whole  human  family. 

ADVANCE  VIEWS. 

All  tax  on  capital  and  personal  property  is  impossible  to  collect 
with  any  reasonable  fairness  and  justice ; it  produces  little  revenue, 
compared  to  its  great  value,  which  largely  escapes  all  taxation.  It  is 
a tax  on  conscience,  which  is  unenforceable,  and  the  strong  incentive  of 
deep  thinkers  on  the  subject  is  to  abolish  this  tax  entirely, 

Alexander  Hamilton  said  in  constitutional  convention,  must 

tax  land  or  industry,  there  is  no  other  choice ; all  taxes,  whatever  their 
name  and  no  matter  how  disguised,  will  rest  ultimately  on  one  or  the 
other/^  Hence  the  strong  tendency  is  in  justice  to  all  and  for  the 
very  best  reasons — to  entirely  remove  all  tax  from  industry  and  put  it 
all  on  land  aiid  franchise  values.  This  is  a community  value  which 
is  increased  or  decreased  with  the  population.  People  coming  close 
together  in  the  cities  create  the  demand  and  utility  which  produces 
the  great  value  of  the  whole  community.  All  government  expenses 
must  be  borne  by  the  values  really  created  by  the  whole  people  or 
individuals  must  be  deprived  of  part  of  their  legitimate  earnings.  If 
the  people  or  the  cities  per  se  create  these  imrnense  values,  they  have  a 
legitimate  right  to  regulate  and  prevent  the  lessening  of  communal 
value,  without  abolishing  private  property  in  land. 

“The  late  Hon.  Tom  L.  Johnson  estimated  the  land  values  of 
cities  at  60%,  farms  20%,  and  mines  20%.  Farmers  own  a large  part 
of  the  land  in  any  state,  but  they  own  little  land  value. 


21 


Obviously  land  values  are  located  in  the  cities,  viz. : * ‘ The  block 
in  St.  Louis  occupied  by  the  Barr  Dry  Goods  Co.  is  a striking  illustra- 
tion of  the  enormous  values  that  are  produced  by  the  presence,  necessi- 
ties and  activities  of  a great  population.  Here  is  a tract  of  one  and 
three-tenths  acres  which  has  increased  in  value  from  $2,000  in  1817  to 
a present  market  value  of  $6,000,000  on  the  land,  independent  of  all 
improvements,  or  $4,516,000  per  acre.  There  are  82  counties  in  the 
State  of  Missouri,  in  any  one  of  which  the  present  total  assessed  value 
of  real  estate  is  less  than  the  actual  market  value  of  this  single  city 
block,  without  improvements.” 

This  demonstrates  the  great  care  and  emphasis  necessary  in  cor- 
rectly valuing  city  business  lots. 

No  constitutional  change  is  at  present  proposed,  but  obviously  the 
time  is  not  far  distant  when  the  whole  fundamental  principle  of  taxa- 
tion will  be  revolutionized  so  that  it  will  ultimately  all  rest  on  lands, 
franchises  and  those  values  which  the  people  in  the  aggregate  sub- 
consciously produce.  This  is  sometimes  called  the  unearned  increment. 

We  thought  of  getting  this  copyrighted  and  then  kindly  request  each 
village,  city  or  community  using  it  to  adopt  and  permanently  maintain 
at  least  one  settlement  home  for  the  benefit  of  their  aged  poor ; more 
and  larger  homes  for  the  larger  cities  in  proportion  to  population,  etc. 
Adopting  settlement  homes  for  the  aged  poor  is  no  charity;  it  is  a 
moral,  and  should  be  a legal,  duty.  This  system  will  save  any  com- 
munity adopting  it  many  times  more  than  the  cost  of  properly  main- 
taining such  homes,  with  a little  more  consideration  than  is  shown  in 
the  ordinary  county  poor  house.  Have  they  not  been  our  mothers  and 
fathers,  or  our  grandparents?  Are  we  not  trustees  on  probation,  for 
a little  while  only,  of  all  pecuniary  gain  ? This  will  be  accomplishing 
a double  good  by  eradicating  one  of  the  most  pernicious  public  wrongs 
which  has  seriously  troubled  all  communities  for  ages.  It  will  stand 
for  the  betterment  of  the  masses  as  well  as  the  direct  uplift  of  the  poor. 
We  want  no  compensation  or  recognition  of  any  kind,  except  a happy 
thought  of  having  been  the  medium  of  transmitting  a little  light  and 
truth  to  posterity.  In  its  far-reaching  effect  it  is  destined  to  benefit 
the  entire  human  family.  To  the  people  for  a Christmas  1911,  when 
it  was  finished. 


22 


Nov.  loth,  1911. 

Dr.  N,  Wagner, 

No.  1101  Emerson  Street,  City. 

Dear  Sir: 

I have  read  carefully  your  proposed  plan  of  assessment.  I recognize  fully 
the  inconsistencies  that  result  from  the  present  method  of  assessing  real 
estate,  and  agree  with  you  thoroughly  that  one  of  the  important  elements 
that  should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  assessing  real  estate  values,  are 
the  income  qualities,  or  possibilities,  actual  and  potential,  of  the  real  estate 
to  be  assessed.  Your  plan  of  assessment,  therefore,  is  a move  in  the  right 
direction,  and  I heartily  endorse  any  movement  looking  to  the  adoption  of 
a scientific  system  of  the  assessment  of  real  estate  values. 

Very  truly  yours, 

W.  A.  HOVER. 

Denver,  Colo.,  Nov.  14,  1911. 

Dr.  N.  Wagner,  Denver,  Colo., 

Dear  Sir:  I have  read  as  carefully  as  my  limited  time  would  permit, 
your  system  of  taxation.  As  it  differs  quite  radically  from  the  methods  now 
employed,  more  study  is  required  for  a proper  understanding  of  it  than  I 
have  been  able  to  give.  But  it  does  appear  to  provide  an  excellent  remedy 
for  present  ills.  Under  this  system  it  would  be  impossible  for  taxable  prop- 
erty to  escape  bearing  its  share  of  the  public  burden,  and  the  basis  of  valua- 
tion is  so  fair  and  equitable  no  honesf  man  will  refuse  to  give  it  careful 
consideration. 

Yours  truly, 

FRANK  HALL. 

Denver,  Colo.,  November  20,  1911. 

Mr.  Napoleon  Wagner, 

1101  Emerson  St.,  City. 

Dear  Sir: 

An  examination  of  your  plan  seems  to  me  to  show  that  you  have  an  idea 
tliere  which,  if  carried  out  carefully,  would  certainly  be  wonderfully  more 
effective  than  the  hit  and  miss  plan  of  determining  the  value  of  a given  lot 
plus  the  improvements,  which  has  ordinarily  been  the  method  of  determining 
realty  values. 

Your  plan  has  the  advantage  of  recognizing  the  unquestionably  close 
connection  between  actual  rental  values  and  real  value.  It  seems  to  me  that 
its  application  would  bring  about  a practical  justice,  providing,  of  course, 
that  the  actual  rental  values  of  your  ground  fioors  were  secured. 

Very  truly  yours, 

C.  E.  CHADSEY, 

Superintendent  Denver  Public  Schools. 

Denver,  Colo.,  Oct.  30th,  1911. 

I fully  endorse  the  above  suggestions  and  system  of  taxation  recom- 
mended by  Napoleon  Wagner,  as  being  full  and  complete.  I would  add 
nothing  in  reference  to  personality,  etc.  I have  no  doubt  it  will  do  all  he 
claims  for  it.  I would  like  to  see  it  put  in  practical  use  in  Denver. 

C.  C.  GIRD, 

Assessor  for  City  and  County  of  Denver  for  the  years  1904  to  1908. 

Denver,  Colorado,  November  20,  1911. 

I think  very  favorably  of  the  suggestions  and  system  of  taxation  by 
Napoleon  Wagner.  I should  get  it  copyrighted  and  use  it  exactly  as  he 
recommends.  By  this  system  no  value  can  escape  taxation — it  will^  bear 
alike  on  rich  and  poor.  There  can  be  no  discrimination.  I believe  it  is  the 
fairest  and  most  just  system  that  can  be  used  for  taxing  all  alike  according 
to  value.  It  probably  would  save  annually  many  millions  of  dollars  of  valua- 


23 


tion  in  Denver  which  heretofore  has  entirely  escaped  all  taxation.  In  all 
fairness  and  self-preservation,  Denver  and  all  other  cities  can  not  adopt  it 
too  soon,  because  it  is  the  ideal  of  simplicity,  efficiency  and  reliability. 

Yours  sincerely, 

S.  ROY  WRIGHT, 

Chief  Deputy  Assessor  for  the  City  and  County 
of  Denver,  Colo.,  for  two  terms. 

I fully  concur  in  the  above. 


H.  S.  VAUGHN,  Atty. 


Denver,  Colorado,  Dec.  14,  1911. 

Mr.  Napoleon  Wagner, 

Denver,  Colo. 

Dear  Sir: 

As  long  as  taxes  are  charged  against  property  upon  the  basis  of  its  valu- 
ation, then  in  order  to  secure  uniform  taxation  we  must  follow  some  uniform 
method  in  ascertaining  such  value. 

From  an  examination  of  the  method  proposed  by  you  it  seems  to  me 
that  if  it  is  conscientiously  followed,  it  would  result  in  getting  a uniform 
valuation  of  rentable  property.  I have,  however,  given  more  study  to  the 
legal  problems  concerning  taxation  than  to  the  methods  to  be  followed  in 
securing  a uniform  valuation.  As  to  whether  your  method  is  a workable 
method  the  opinions  of  the  men  who  have  been  engaged  in  actually  assessing 
property  and  who  have  given  this  feature  special  study,  are  of  much  more 
value  than  mine. 

Yours  very  truly, 

L.  F.  Twitchell. 


December  20,  1911. 

Dr.  Napoleon  Wagner, 

1101  Emerson  Street,  Denver,  Colorado. 

Dear  Sir: 

I have  made  a careful  examination  of  the  system  of  taxation  proposed 
by  Dr.  Napoleon  Wagner;  and  I believe  that  with  some  changes — which  prac- 
tical application  would  demonstrate — this  system  would  be  a great  improve- 
ment on  the  so  called  scientific  systems  now  in  use.  I have  had  eleven 
years  of  practical  experience  in  valuing  realty  for  assessment. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

William  E.  Lamb. 


I have  read  the  account  of  the  system  of  determining  the  value  of  city 
lots  as  proposed  by  Dr.  Napoleon  Wagner  and  I believe  it  to  be  a suggestion 
of  a method  for  greater  accuracy  in  the  valuation  of  such  property.  It  ap- 
pears to  me  practicable  and  similar  to  the  methods  employed  in  business  to 
ascertain  the  value  of  such  lots.  I think  it  is  worthy  of  the  careful  attention 
of  students  of  taxation  and  I should  like  to  see  it  given  a trial. 

John  B.  Phillips, 

Professor  of  Economics 

Dec.  16,  1911.  University  of  Colorado. 

December  18,  1911. 

Dr.  Napoleon  Wagner, 

Denver,  Colorado. 

Dear  Sir: 

I turned  your  paper  over  to  Dr.  Phillips,  our  Professor  of  Economics  and 
Sociology.  He  is  something  of  an  expert  on  the  subject  of  taxation  and  his 
opinion  is  of  real  value.  I congratulate  you  on  the  estimates  of  its  value 
that  you  have  received. 

Verv  truly  yours, 

JAMES  H.  BAKER,  A.  M.,  LL.  D., 

President  University  of  Colorado. 


24 


Denver,  Colo.,  12-22-1911. 

Dr.  Napoleon  Wagner, 

11th  & Emerson,  City. 

Dear  Sir: 

As  a supervisor  of  Denver  and  one  who  has  to  pass  on  the  equalization 
of  taxes,  I have  made  it  my  business  to  investigate  the  Somers  or  Unit 
System,  and  found  it  about  as  harmonious  and  scientific  as  a crazy  quilt;  and 
on  a par  with  our  Colorado  freight  tariffs.  Philadelphia  has  repudiated  it. 
The-court  there  held,  that  a mathematical  problem  was  not  patentable,  and 
that  an  elected  assessor  cannot  legally  delegate  his  duty  to  a non-resident 
Hessian. 

After  the  investigation  of  the  taxation  system  of  New  York,  Cleveland, 
Philadelphia  and  Chicago,  I believe  that  yours,  “The  Napoleon  Wagner  Pro- 
posed System  of  Taxation,”  has  the  greatest  merit  and  should  be  given  a 
trial. 

Wishing  you  every  success,  I am. 

Very  truly  yours, 

GEO.  J.  KINDEL, 

Supervisor. 


